Lincoln Was Pro-Slavery

On July 19 the Associated Press and Reuterís reported an "amazing find" at a museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania: A copy of a letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, the letter is not at all "amazing" to anyone familiar with the real Lincoln. It was a copy of a letter that was sent to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that would have made southern slavery constitutionally "irrevocable," to use the word that Lincoln used in his first inaugural address ...

This is one reason why the great Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner ... hated and despised Lincoln and his entire gang ...

The Lincoln cult knows about all of this, but works diligently to keep it out of view of the general public ...

Most of these kinds of documents have been meticulously whitewashed from the historical record. When they do surface and are made public, the Lincoln cult gets to work burying them in an avalanche of excuses designed to fog the real meaning of the documents in the minds of the average American ...

Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning.

Lincolnís slavery forever amendment read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214) ...

In his first inaugural address Dishonest Abe explicitly supported this amendment while pretending that he hardly knew anything about it (i.e., lying) ...

Lincoln was not an abolitionist and, unlike Lysander Spooner, he believed that slavery was already constitutional. Nevertheless, he also favored making it "express and irrevocable."

I point this out because the only way to learn from history is to know what the history really was.

When our textbooks lie about who Lincoln was and what he was about, it makes it far more difficult to learn the lessons of history.

The Civil War was fought for the usual reasons: money and power, not slavery.

Furthermore, Lincoln was by far the worst president in US history and set in motion a number of things that destroyed our constitutional republic.

As an aside: Since this amendment passed both houses of Congress, and ratified by Illinois, it is only a matter of getting another 37 states to ratify it and slavery will be lawful -- overturning the current 13th Amendment! I don't advocate it, but I do advocate discussing what the real American history is.

It's not really an amazing find. If you just read letters reprinted from him to other people it's very clear when he says verbatim that he didn't fight the civil war for slavery or intending to free the slaves it's clear what his intentions were. Also people complain about the current administration while failing to look into their history books with things like the suspension of the bill of rights, imprisoning political opponents and activists in the hulls of warships to silence them, etc.

That said, I think the "worst" president is a strong statement. I think Andrew Jackson is far worse in a lot of ways.

EDIT: Also, the ammendment itself is not enshrining slavery in the constitution but leaving it up to the state governments to decide.

"with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Lincoln stated openly if he could win the war without ending slavery he would, he also decided he couldn't win the civil war that way, and in the end sided with the abolitionists. Regardless whether ending slavery was a needed strategy, the fact remains he ended slavery.

I don't have any respect for DiLorenzo's constant attacks on Lincoln. Typical sort of stunt to take a single document out of context.

The often repeated claim that if Lincoln could preserve the Union without ending slavery, he would do so, misses the point of why the Southern States seceded in the first place.

If the Union remained intact, slavery was doomed. The Southern advantage in the House, guaranteed by the 3/5 of a man provision, had disappeared with the idustrialization of the North and the resulting population boom. The westward expansion and adding of new states was threatening to end slave state dominance of the Senate. The Constitutional abolition of slavery was almost in sight. Preserving the union was guaranteed to destroy slavery. Secession became necessary to preserve it.

Lincoln was a Seward abolitionist, a memeebrt of the faction which supported the gradual but certain elimination of slavery through Constitutional means, unlike the Garrison abolitionists who endorsed slave rebellions and the use of force. Of the two camps, the slave owners feared the Seward abolitionists the most.

There is much to criticise Abe Lincoln for, but he did end lead the nation out of slavery. And all the ranting of crazy revisionists like DiLorenzo won't change that.

Rick

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis